Candidates, campaigns, and core values

Welcome to Red Mom Blue Mom, ParentDish's special coverage of the 2008 Presidential election. Each Tuesday through November 4, columnists Rachel Campos-Duffy (Red Mom) and Ada Calhoun (Blue Mom) will take on issues relevant to parents on both sides of the aisle. You can find past Red Mom/Blue Mom posts here.Red Mom: Making a choice about schoolsBy Rachel Campos-Duffy

Of all the things Barack gets a free pass on, nothing gets my goat more than education, a topic of considerable importance to me as a parent and one he touts as his forte. Quite simply, when it comes to education policy, Barack and Michelle Obama are hypocrites!

While Barack and Michelle champion public schools (Michelle waxes endlessly in speeches about her own public education), they fail to mention that their own daughters attend the University of Chicago's Lab School, one of our nation's most exclusive prep schools that costs some $20,000 a year in tuition per child. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, Chicago's Lab School is among the top five feeder institutions for our nation's most elite universities. To be fair, the Obama girls began attending while Michelle was a University of Chicago employee and were therefore eligible for a tuition break.

Though Michelle no longer works there, the Obama's cite the proximity of this elite institution to their home as the reason they continue to attend. I get that, but I think there's more to it. Conspicuously absent from the Obamas's hard-knocks, they're-just-like-us video biographies during the Democratic convention were Michelle and Barack's impeccably Ivy League credentials. Presumably, they expect nothing less for Malia and Sasha.

Well, don't we all!

Michelle and Barack are opposed to school choice programs, also known as tuition vouchers, which would allow middle class and poor parents to also have choice when it comes to their children's educations. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama's to stand in the way of other families trying, as they do, to give their kids the very best education they can.

Interestingly, despite private school options in Wasilla, the Palins chose public school for their own children. And while it's not surprising that the very wealthy McCain family sent their kids to private schools, at least John McCain, who is a proponent of school choice, wants to help other parents have the same opportunities when it comes to their children's education.

So why do Michelle and Barack stand in the way of an innovative program that would give poor minority parents the power and choice that rich and privileged people like them enjoy? A big part of the reason is teachers unions, who are threatened by the potential exodus of students (and money) to private institutions. Too bad Obama doesn't have the audacity to stand up to that powerful lobby so that all families can hope to give their child the very best education they can. Now that would be change I could believe in.

For years, the Republican party has promoted itself as two things: fiscally conservative and the sole defender of "family values."

Talk about irony. As Representative Steny Hoyer has pointed out, "George W. Bush inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, which he proceeded to turn into a projected deficit of more than $4 trillion." He will leave office with the country in the direst financial straits we've been in since the Great Depression.

John McCain vows to continue many of Bush's failed policies, including the continuance of huge tax breaks for the very rich at the expense of our children's and grandchildren's future. In a broad policy study compiled by the Brookings Institution, it is clear that Obama is about 100% more concerned with the well-being America's children than Arizona's senior senator. He voted yes for reauthorization of the State Children's Health Program in 2007; McCain voted no. Obama pledges to invest millions to stimulate and help fund "zero to five programs;" McCain counters, "There is no shortage of federal programs at early child care and preschool." Maybe it seems like that when your seven children from two marriages are all enrolled in the best private schools. (McCain donated more than $500,000 to his kids' top-shelf education between 2001 and 2006, according to Harpers.org. "McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children." But those of us -- most of us -- who make do with public schools know that there an appalling shortage of excellence. Free or reasonably-priced quality preschool is almost impossible to find in many parts of the country.

Sarah Palin's family bills itself as "Joe Sixpack," but it's been churning out one maverick-y scandal after another. In her attempts to punish her ex-brother-in-law, Palin engaged in what the recent report called a breach of the state's ethics law. Her eldest daughter is an unmarried pregnant high-school dropout. As suggested in a recent profile in the New York Times, Palin was perhaps pregnant when she eloped, too. And yet, she maintains a more socially conservative stance than even George W. Bush.

How can the McCain-Palin ticket still be trying to claim the moral high ground?

Meanwhile, Joe Biden takes the train home every night so he can be with his family. He raised his two sons after his wife and daughter died in a car wreck, and eventually found a woman who would be a good stepmother to his children and married her. They have been together for more than 30 years.

Last week, Barack Obama suspended his campaign not to stage a failed last-ditch bid to portray himself as a non-partisan economic savior, but to pay a humble, private visit to his dying grandmother.

Together, the Obamas have decided the best thing for their family and country is to put forward Barack's pro-family policies and also -- so refreshingly! -- their family's good example. How wonderful would it be to fill the White House with the laughter of the confident, lovely Obama girls rather than the tight couture grimace of Cindy McCain or, heaven forbid, the smug hypocrisy soap operatic-lifestyle of the Palins.

TheTalkies:RelatedVideos

Conn. Mom Pleads For Gun Control at White HouseThe mother of a 6-year-old boy killed in the Connecticut school shooting used the opportunity to fill in for President Barack Obama during the weekly address to make a personal plea from the White House for action to combat gun violence. (April 13)

What's Trending, September 26, 2013Samuel L. Jackson tells Obama to "be Presidential"; mom "comes out" as pro-vaccine; Sleepless in Austin man has high, terrible standards; Joseph Gordon Levitt reveals that he has a girlfriend to Howard Stern; 19 signs you went to an all girls school.

Political Science - Romney Schools Obama In Science ExamScientific American recently conducted a 14 question Q+A with the presidential candidates. And the party that allies itself with science lost the experiment. Jacob Soboroff and Alyona Minkovski are joined by guests Timothy Naftali, Shawn Otto and Ryan Hayden to discuss.

ReaderComments (Page 1 of 2)

I think both candidates' wives look completely stressed out, but that is irrelevant. Issues are relevant. Issues like - vouchers. I support Obama AND I am happy that he doesn't support vouchers. Vouchers are not innovative. Vouchers lead to increased discrepancies in schools and it is the poor and disabled who end up in the worst situations. Private and public schools are apples and oranges. They are different creatures and the government should NOT have a voucher program that puts public money into private schools. The most obvious reason is that private schools do not accept any and all students. Students who are severely physically disabled and need a full-time nurse, students who are autistic, students who speak no english, students who have no permanent address and students with zero parental cooperation are accepted without question in public schools. As long as private schools filter admission, they do not deserve school voucher money.

All children are entitlted to an education, but the idea that we can have only one kind of education and that ONE thing is best for all students has FAILED miserably.

Private schools may not be the best option for all people, including the people they deny because they can't provide the resources for all, but may be able to provide what my child best needs. Some of these schools that would be able to accept vouchers ARE schools that cater to autism, etc. and they are being denied as well.

People are way to diverse to cram into a one size fits all school system. I'd be happy to have a voucher of 1/3 of what the school spends on my child yet fails to properly educate her. Private schools (and charter schools, etc.) allow parents to choose the best education for their child.

I don't make what Obama and Michelle make and and send my kid to a private school whoms price tag makes me sigh everytime I write a tutition check - just because they dont' make the choices you would make doesn't make them any less committed to seeing public school do better - I am committed to that as well but I choose to send my kids to get the best education I can and its simply not in the publich school system. There is no crime in that - I personally would be upset if they didn't do the absolute best they can for thier kids.

Could the fact that the girls were able to start there (most likely for free - university employees often get more then a break but free tuition) been the reason they kept them in the school, though Michelle is no longer there? They can obviously afford to have them continue there, and to uproot their children from a good school which they've been in for some time and that they can pay for easily just because they support public schools is unfair to their children.

blue mom...you really need to work on presenting a cohesive argument. you're all over the place from the deficit, to education, dying grandmothers and this gem: "As suggested in a recent profile in the New York Times, Palin was perhaps pregnant when she eloped, too". anyone with even the smallest rock in their head know the NYT is about as unbiased a source as Fox News.

"Barack Obama suspended his campaign not to stage a failed last-ditch bid to portray himself as a non-partisan economic savior..."

i know. god forbid he suspend his campaign to do the job he was actually elected to do.

1) I would love to hear what Marva Collins thinks of Obama's education policy. Ms. Collins is an innovative black teacher who started an extremely successful charter school in inner-city Chicago. She breaks from the typical rantings of her race and profession to argue, and prove, that poor black kids have tremendous capabilities that are being suppressed by the policies and people behind the Chicago public schools.

2) The deficit that built during the Bush administration can be directly traced to 9-11-01, which was planned years before Bush took office. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's economic policies, and no bearing on McCain's policies.

3) Obama visited his ailing grandma - whooptie doo. His mom was fatally ill for months (I've read as long as a year) and he chose not to visit her during that time, because he was estranged from her. He was in his 30s when he died. One minute he says he regrets not seeing her before she died, the next minute he's putting out a campaign ad saying his mom was sick for months and worrying about her health insurance, hence we "vote for me" so I can take over your health care. Yeah, terrific family values.

4) The reason Republicans voted against that EXPANDED child health measure was that it was to be funded by cutting benefits to the elderly. Who can deny that the elderly need government-funded health care more than children do? Children have fewer health problems and usually have parents who could work and pay a few bucks for their own children's care. Besides, the vast majority of kids, including "uninsured" kids, already have access to affordable health care, through subsidies or free programs.

5) Obama's stated tax plan, through expiration of the Bush tax cuts for working- and middle-class people, will result in significant tax increases even for people earning below the median income in our country. McCain proposes to continue the Bush tax cuts for everyone, not just the "rich."

6) Obama's voting record in IL includes blocking a measure against infanticide and being the sole vote in favor of rights for pedophiles.

7) Obama was against welfare-to-work, believing that pure welfare was more beneficial to the constituents he chooses to represent.

8) Obama for decades sent his kids to church with a "pastor" who spouted anti-US and anti-white rants, and went so far as to write a book about what a great guy he was, before dumping him for political expediency in the past year.

9) Obama wants to make it illegal for parents to support their families by working for a company where the union is on strike.

10) Obama has a pretty spotty personal past, and it isn't ancient history.

11) Obama and his campaign ruthlessly punish anyone who dares to ask a question of them. No wonder he can't wait to sit down with Castro and Chavez. He'll fit right in! But wait, I thought this was America?

12) Obama never admits that he was wrong. He is the second human being in the history of Earth who has always gotten it right. Maybe he is the Messiah after all?

13) Obama presided over conflicts of interest in disbursing government funding to radical and anti-white groups.

14) Obama spews lie upon lie about his record and about the "facts" he states to support his platform. So how can anyone believe he isn't lying about his plans for the future, particularly those that are completely different from his actual voting record and "community organizing" efforts of his past?

15) Obama agrees that an increase in capital gains tax, which would impact half of Americans (not just the "rich"), would actually result in LESS tax revenue for the treasury, but he plans to do it anyway because, in his opinion, it's "fair" to punish people (e.g., retirees with a little nest egg) for owning stocks.

16) Obama's tax plan will result in lower tax revenues, job losses, and higher costs for basic necessities, as businesses scale back their operations and raise prices to cover increased taxes. If Obama nevertheless pursues his spending plans - and I think he will, to further his wealth redistribution goals - then deficits will balloon even further. He uses the deficit to criticize republicans, yet what's he going to leave us with? Think Jimmy Carter, only worse.

If enough of you folks are foolish enough to vote for Obama, I'm just gonna hunker down and ride it out. I don't need a job; I've paid my dues, I've saved my money, I've paid off my house. I'll just give my kids some quality time so that when the country gets back on the right track, we can all pick up and move forward. But what will all the spoiled "I deserve more" working / middle class people do? Listen to Obama's ever-changing stories about why your job loss is gonna benefit everyone? OK, whatever.

So Rachel - It's okay for McCain to send his kids to private school but not Obama??!! What a double standard - you just don't even make sense any more!

SKL - the larger the gap in the polls, the longer your ramblings get; by next week you'll have taken over the entire blog! BTW - #2 is false, #3 is pathetically bitter; #4 the elderly have SS and Medcare; aren't children our future? #5 hasn't worked for 8 years; why continue? #'s 6 - 13; just spouting FOX news talking points; the rest are so in accurate it is impossible to address them.

And finllay - Are you implying in your last paragraph that the country is "on track" right now??!! That's the craziest assertion in your entire rant!

jen, regarding #4, good morning, the dems wanted to CUT MEDICARE, hence the votes against the proposal. Regarding #5, from the recovery from 9-11 up until about a year ago, this economy was kicking ass. Even now, it's great compared to most developed countries and most of US history. CNN propoganda is different from fact. How many people do you personally know who aren't gainfully employed though they have the will and skill to be? I don't know any. There's room for improvement, but not through raising taxes. I won't respond to your other comments since they are non-substantive.

Also... in regards to the "insurance for children" program... as you mentioned SKL, it was an *expansion* of an already existing program. The plan was to EXPAND it to cover "children" up to 25 YEARS OLD. Last time I checked, 25 is not a child.

Great "rant" SKL... I couldn't add another thing. You did an awesome job!

SKL, I always start thinking of ways to respond, and then I discover you've already given that response and more! Thanks for doing what you can to infuse some reasonableness into the minds of people here. I'd vote for you, too.

The phrase "tax breaks for the rich" always kills me. My husband has worked very hard his entire life. He got an advanced degree after college at great expense (our student loan payments are nearly $1,000 per month) and now he has a good job making an income that Mr. Obama considers "the rich." We have a house and two cars and we generally don't struggle to buy groceries. But we do still have huge budget concerns with utilities, gas for our cars, putting away money for retirement and our children's future college educations (our kids won't qualify for ANY financial aid), etc. To penalize my husband with higher taxes because he worked and worked to gain a position of prominence while my cousin's husband ENJOYS being on unemployment because he "hates work" and wants more government services is just ludicrous to me and gets under my skin every time I hear an Obama speech.

To penalize working families (it's amazing how many of us accidentally fall into Obama's "wealthy" category) with higher taxes, the inability to choose the best education for our children (vouchers WORK!), and the burden of supporting a great number of people with no interest in supporting themselves is a disservice to this country and the American way.

I so agree with you Secret Mommy. My husband has inherited a family plywood business and while our kids are grown up and we don't have to worry to much about them and can pay our bills and not worry to much about what we buy, why should he/we get penalized for hard work and long days and weekends spent working our ass off for people who "have a sore back" or a "cold" and lay around and don't work??? I have such a problem with this whole "spread the wealth" thing of Obama's.

I feel if you work hard and achieve success in your life, it's up to other people to pull their own weight. Why should we have to help lazy and unmotivated people?? I'm not talking about the person who has fallen temporally down, I'm talking about serial welfare users and people who "just want to make it." We wanted more than to just make it so why should we have to share our hard work?

You do have the ability to choose any school you want for your children. If you have the means you say you do in your post, then you should have no problem providing any education you wish for your children. If you aren't pleased with the schools in your community, you are free to move or send your children to the private school of your choice. If you are "rich" by the standard Obama has talked about (an income greater than $250K) your family wouldn't qualify for vouchers anyway.

I don't have a problem with school choice in theory, but I think there would be problems with logistics (too many students wanting to attend too few good schools). Vouchers will just bankrupt public schools under the guise of choice. Also, voucher programs would allow public tax dollars to go to all sorts of schools. I don't want my money going to religious schools of any stripe, whether it be a Christian school, a school that promotes Scientology or one that enforces complete atheism.